The Old World is a reference to those parts of Earth known to Europeans before the voyages of Christopher Columbus; it includes Europe, Asia and Africa.
Hopefully one can open up a discussion about this topic without foul langauge and trolling.
It is worth noting that this has been a bitterely contested area in the past. In the late nineteenth century it was believed that there was a dark age genocide and several Welsh scholars were particularly vitriolic. This is what happens when archaeology gets caught up with nationalist feeling.
But let us start at the begining. How did Roman Britain end - how did the Roman Empire end?
And importantly how would people know it had ended?
Archaeology tells us the old notion of barbarian hordes sacking cities is false.
Secondly we need to understand that non-romans (to use the term lightly) were a fundamental part of the late Roman scene.
Stilicho (359 - 408), Honorious' chief general was a Vandal
Here we see the famous Dyptych of Stilicho and his wife and son. Note the shield. First off the plain lack of a sacred Chi Rho symbol. Secondly the two figures on the shield - the Emperor Honorious and his brother. Note also the relatively casual dress, so different to earlier imperial imagery. His sword is very low slung, reflecting the practice of later medieval times.
The panegyrics and poetry of Claudian dedicated to Stilicho give us some clue about the state of Britain - one of hte last Roman sources.
non longinqua docent, domito quod Saxone Tethys
mitior aut fracto secura Britannia Picto
It
Is fascinating to note that later in a panegyric Claudian speaks of woad stained Britain. But can the British still have worn woad at this time? Does this reflect roma n attitudes to the British?
From the panegyric we learn that Stilicho does seem to have either campaigned or sent reinforcements to Britain. Meaning it was still important to the Empire.
Last edited by Simon21 on Fri Jul 20, 2018 3:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
I do not know how anyone can assert that a book was written in a monastery at a particular time
if the existence of that monastery at that time can not be physically shown.
With what is known,
all that can be said so far is that the book was in the possession of a later monastery at that location.
The fatal flaw of the Roman Empire was that it had no mechanism for reliable passing executive power.
Thus various generals would try to seize the office of Emperor,
which led to the wasting of military resources: http://www.dot-domesday.me.uk/division.htm
simon wrote:
How did Roman Britain end?
And importantly how would people know it had ended?
Britain's role in the Empire changed significantly with Carausius's revolt:
"In spring 286, Maximian was elevated to full emperor (i.e. Augustus) status. Diocletian remained the senior partner, however, assuming the title Jovius (after Jupiter), whilst Maximian took that of that of Herculius (after Hercules).
“... [Carausius] having captured numbers of the barbarians on several occasions, but having never given back the entire booty to the people of the Province [Gaul?] or sent it to the emperors, and there being a suspicion, in consequence, that the barbarians were intentionally allowed by him to congregate there, that he might seize them and their booty as they passed, and by that means enrich himself, assumed, on being sentenced by Maximian to be put to death, the imperial purple, and took on him the government of Britain.” - Eutropius ‘Breviarium Ab Urbe Condita’ Book IX Chapter 21"
simon wrote:
This is what happens when archaeology gets caught up with nationalist feeling.+
I think that perhaps a better way to put it is:
This is what happens when archaeology gets caught up with nationalist, religious, and racist biases.[/quote]
All research has bias of somekind it is underatanding it that matters
What has this to do with the subject? It is after the conversion
I do not know how anyone can assert that a book was written in a monastery at a particular time
if the existence of that monastery at that time can not be physically shown.
With what is known,
all that can be said so far is that the book was in the possession of a later monastery at that location.
[/quote]
The writing is the physical evidence and beleive it or not it is possible to anayse ancient documents.
Last edited by Simon21 on Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
The fatal flaw of the Roman Empire was that it had no mechanism for reliable passing executive power.
Thus various generals would try to seize the office of Emperor,
which led to the wasting of military resources: http://www.dot-domesday.me.uk/division.htm
This has nothing to do with the subject - revolts had been occuring for over 400 years
I suggest you use proper sources. The word "mercenary" is misconceived, Foederati is the proper term and there was no particular problem with them. As Stilicho shows
simon wrote:
How did Roman Britain end?
And importantly how would people know it had ended?
Britain's role in the Empire changed significantly with Carausius's revolt:
"In spring 286, Maximian was elevated to full emperor (i.e. Augustus) status. Diocletian remained the senior partner, however, assuming the title Jovius (after Jupiter), whilst Maximian took that of that of Herculius (after Hercules).
What is the relevance of this?
“... [Carausius] having captured numbers of the barbarians on several occasions, but having never given back the entire booty to the people of the Province [Gaul?] or sent it to the emperors, and there being a suspicion, in consequence, that the barbarians were intentionally allowed by him to congregate there, that he might seize them and their booty as they passed, and by that means enrich himself, assumed, on being sentenced by Maximian to be put to death, the imperial purple, and took on him the government of Britain.” - Eutropius ‘Breviarium Ab Urbe Condita’ Book IX Chapter 21"
The Carausian revolt is well known I have written about it several times and atteneded som BM confernces. Is there a point to this?
simon wrote:
And importantly how would people know it had ended?
Modern scholarship focuses on the level of the tribes of Britain:
as these were likely the most important social connections
for most people, those not living in fully Romanized areas.
It seems likely that Carausius's revolt
was well known to everyone.
And modern scholarship consists of one uncredited website and a silly map- not the work of the BM, CBA etc -creditable sources. And who is "everyone" The reelvant dates are 400 - 550 as the title indicates
Sigh... EP is going to hijack this thread too. You can see it coming a mile away. We don't need another pissing contest. Stop this before it continues ad nauseum.
"Nothing discloses real character like the use of power. It is easy for the weak to be gentle. Most people can bear adversity. But if you wish to know what a man really is, give him power. This is the supreme test." ~ Robert G. Ingersoll
"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, and, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer." ~ Alexander Pope
circumspice wrote:Sigh... EP is going to hijack this thread too. You can see it coming a mile away. We don't need another pissing contest. Stop this before it continues ad nauseum.
What this guy runs the site does he? He decides ho is allowed to discuss what?
spice, this is no different than the "Problematic Discoveries" thread over in the New World section.
simon asked some questions,
and I provided him with links to modern research on those questions.
Now the answers I provided the links to
are not the answers simon wanted,
anymore than the responses over on the "Problematic Discoveries" thread
were what springhead expected.
The working paradigm of the archaeological and anthropological researchers working in the UK has changed:
see http://www.dot-domesday.me.uk/tribes.htm
Now if pointing out current research to simon or you is "hijacking",
then why are you asking?
PS - the Angles and Saxons were two different Germanic tribes.
You are not pointing out anything as you do not have the basics even the geography.
You do not learn this subject by web trawling and posting any rubbish you find.
Dot doomsday is not a credible source it is a trash website.
Returning to the subject we have the question why was the diocese of Britain worth defending?
And by defending we do not necessarily mean from Picts,Scots and Germanic settlers. One historian has suggested the Bagaudae were causing chaos. No one is entirely clear what they were but they certainly included rebellious peasants.
At a BM conference on coin hoards it was pointed out that recent discoveries of dock facilities in ES indcates that grain shipments were taking place across the Channel to the Rhine Garrisons
When these garrisons were withdrawn after the great raid (pace Peter Brown) the trade dried up plunging Britain into ruin.
Hence the frantic three rebellions culminating in Constantine III - apparently a common soldier.
simon wrote:
"Why was the diocese of Britain worth defending?"
Since Christianity was a late phenomenon,
a better question is
"Why was Britain worth conquering?"
What was Britain's value to the Empire and the Emperors?
